3fce3b5 · 2,287 commits · 237 files
Issued 2026-09-24
Reads strong: 3 of 5 rated dimensions are strong, 2 are adequate and none is significant.
40 checks ran across 6 assessable dimensions. Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance and Security & Reliability Posture are adequate. 2 findings, each with evidence. One dimension cannot be assessed without an acquirer.
- Words about people are today's: bands rather than exact shares, dates or day counts, and what the history measured rather than why.
- 2 findings from checks Borehole's calibration found wrong more often than right are no longer published.
- 1 finding about one contributor is withheld: this repository belongs to a person.
| Dimension | Rating | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 01 | Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance | adequate | |
| 02 | Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity | strong | |
| 03 | Organization & Key-Person Risk | not assessable | |
| 04 | Product & Engineering Maturity | strong | |
| 05 | Security & Reliability Posture | adequate | |
| 06 | Observability & Operations | strong | |
| 07 | Fit with the Acquirer | not assessable |
- 1% of non-merge commits carry any trailer at all
- low trailer coverage: the convention may not be in consistent use
- no widespread author/committer date divergence
- deep scan blamed 235 of 235 counted files
Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance
01 · adequate · ratings ↑crates/core/flags/defs.rs is 8,162 lines, 46× this codebase's median file
adequateThe median source file here is 174 lines. 3 files exceed 1,740 lines, the largest being 8,162. Size is not a defect on its own — some problems genuinely live in one place — but these are where merge conflicts, review fatigue and single-owner knowledge concentrate, and they are the first thing that slows an inheriting engineer down.
| line-count | crates/core/flags/defs.rs:1 — 8,162 lines (46× median) |
| line-count | crates/printer/src/standard.rs:1 — 3,988 lines (22× median) |
| line-count | crates/ignore/src/walk.rs:1 — 2,741 lines (15× median) |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity
02 · strong · ratings ↑No finding. 11 checks ran and none fired; the rejection log below says why each did not.
Organization & Key-Person Risk
03 · not assessable · ratings ↑Not rated: this repository belongs to a person rather than an organisation, so a finding about one contributor would be about someone the address names; the public report does not carry those, and does not rate this dimension without them. What a person adds here.
Product & Engineering Maturity
04 · strong · ratings ↑No finding. 6 checks ran and none fired; the rejection log below says why each did not.
Security & Reliability Posture
05 · adequate · ratings ↑None of the standard security guard rails are configured
adequateThere is no disclosure policy, no automated dependency updates, no named code owners and no pre-commit configuration. None of these is load-bearing on its own. Their collective absence says that security posture here is whatever the current team happens to remember to do, which is not a posture that survives the team changing.
| guardrail-scan | checked 7 standard paths across 237 tracked files; 0 present |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
Observability & Operations
06 · strong · ratings ↑No finding. 3 checks ran and none fired; the rejection log below says why each did not.
Fit with the Acquirer
07 · not assessable · ratings ↑Not rated: structurally not assessable from a repository. What a person adds here.
Check it on the running system
1 check against the running system follow from the findings above: what a buyer's engineer will try, how to run it first, and what to have ready. A paid survey of this repository includes them.
A paid survey of a public repository is also reviewed: a language model reads each finding against the code and withdraws only findings it judges the code contradicts, each listed with its reason. The review is a language model's reading of the findings against the code, and it can be wrong. It never adds a finding, never raises a band, and never removes a finding from a proven check or an advisory that affects the surveyed version.
What a person adds
The survey reads what the repository can show. The code cannot settle these questions, and on them this report states nothing. Each says where its answer lives: your own engineer, the company, or an assessor you choose can settle it. Questions marked measured open with something this repository shows.
Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance
01 · full coverage- Is the architecture right for the next three years of the product?
- Were the home-grown components reasonable choices when they were made, and are they now?
Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity
02 · high coverage- Is review real or a rubber stamp? Comment depth and time to approve need the pull request history.
- Is delivery planned and measured, or heroic?
- How are incidents run, reviewed and learned from?
Organization & Key-Person Risk
03 · partial coverageNot rated: this repository belongs to a person rather than an organisation, so a finding about one contributor would be about someone the address names; the public report does not carry those, and does not rate this dimension without them.
- Which of the people who wrote this are part of the transaction, and for how long after it?
- Who mentors whom, and would that survive a departure?
- Can the team grow, and who stands behind the top three contributors?
- Is the seniority mix sound, and will pay survive your salary bands?
- Is the pace sustainable? Commit times cannot say: git keeps no reliable local time.
- Does the team want to stay after close?
- How are decisions made and disagreements resolved?
Product & Engineering Maturity
04 · minimal coverage- measured 227 commits landed in the last year, against 39 the year before (+482%). What drove it: new people, a deadline, or code produced faster than before?
- Can this team deliver the stated roadmap on the stated timeline?
- Does leadership know about the debt, and is time budgeted to repay it?
- Is the engineering shape consistent with the commercial story?
Security & Reliability Posture
05 · partial coverage- What has actually broken, how often, and how badly?
- What did external testing find, and was it fixed?
- What is the SOC 2, ISO 27001 or GDPR status, and where is the evidence?
Observability & Operations
06 · partial coverage- Are the dashboards opened, the alerts acknowledged and the pages answered?
- Are the service-level objectives actually met?
- Who carries the pager, and how often does it go off?
- What does it cost to run, and how much headroom is there?
Fit with the Acquirer
07 · none coverageNot rated: structurally not assessable from a repository.
- This is primarily a Rust codebase. Does your engineering organisation already run Rust in production, or would this be the first?
- The bulk of this system sits in crates/, src/, grep/. Which of your existing systems would each of those have to absorb or replace?
- Nothing in the repository says how this is deployed. Is it shipped as a library, a binary or a service, and if it runs somewhere, who owns that environment?
- What is your tolerance for the findings above remaining unaddressed for the first two quarters after close, given everything else that will compete for this team's time?
- Which of these systems duplicate yours, and which get retired?
- What will integration cost, and in what order?
- Where does the team land in your organisation, and who reports to whom?
- Are there earn-outs, retention packages or contractor IP to assign?
- Do customer contracts limit hosting, regions or vendors?
A human assessment is Borehole's own paid service, €12,000+ (total price is determined per engagement; travel billed at cost). It is not independent of this report: the same business produced both. It is a separate contract, with its own scope, terms and reliance.
Embed the badge
Tied to this commit and this date, and it fades after 90 days — an honest badge is one that expires. A repository with significant findings gets a neutral "read" badge rather than a red one: the library is where the range is visible, not someone else's README.
[](/r/burntsushi/ripgrep/3fce3b5)If you embed it: link it to the report, remove it if the report is delisted, and do not present it as a certification or an endorsement.
Rejection log — 38 signals that ran and did not fire
Appendix: rejection log — 38 signals that ran and did not fire
Published on purpose. A signal that looked and decided not to fire has told you something, and this is the calibration data behind every threshold above.
Looked, and found nothing — 33
| Signal | What it found |
|---|---|
| 04.hotspot_concentration | change is spread across the codebase rather than pooling in a few filesfiles 574 · top5 share 0.184 |
| 04.debt_markers | debt markers are sparsemarkers 21 · per kloc 0.32 · lines read 66,324 |
| 04.churn_trend | rework is not rising against new worklate delete per insert 0.499 · early delete per insert 0.48 |
| 06.telemetry_presence | this repository does not deploy a running service, so instrumentation is not expected of itbasis nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere · files read 183 |
| 06.structured_logging | not a running service; structured logging is not expected of a librarybasis nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere |
| 06.healthcheck_presence | not a running service, so a health endpoint is not expectedbasis nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere |
| 03.active_contributors | withheld: this check's result would describe one person |
| 03.drive_by_contributors | withheld: this check's result would describe one person |
| 03.contributor_attrition | withheld: this check's result would describe one person |
| 02.merge_discipline | a meaningful share of recent change carries evidence of reviewmerges 0 · window last 24 months · with tracked 107 |
| 02.ci_presence | CI configuration is present in the working treecount 2 |
| 02.test_presence | tests are present in a normal proportion to sourcetests 18 · source 111 · test ratio 0.162 |
| 02.release_cadence | tags are presenttags 272 |
| 02.conventional_commits | commit subjects generally carry contentsampled 2,225 · low content share 0.059 |
| 02.branch_protection_hints | process scaffolding is present in the repository |
| 02.ci_runs_tests | CI invokes a test runnerconfigs 2 · with tests 1 |
| 02.skipped_tests | few tests are switched offfocused 0 · skipped 0 · test files 29 |
| 02.ci_test_gating | no test run in CI is written so that it cannot failconfigs 2 |
| 02.revert_share | change is rarely undoneshare 0.0 · reverts 0 · recent commits 266 |
| 02.dependency_update_cadence | dependencies move with the codelockfiles 2 · commits since 0 · days since lockfile changed 0 |
| 01.burst_import | no commit run met both the rate and the net-addition thresholdgap seconds 180 · min add ratio 3.0 · min net added 2,000 |
| 01.initial_dump | first commit is not a disproportionate share of the codebaseinsertions 259 · share of insertions 0.0017 |
| 01.message_uniformity | commit subjects vary in wording and lengthlength stdev 14.39 · repeat share 0.067 |
| 01.revision_depth | most files were revisited after they were first writtenfiles seen 578 · write once share 0.443 |
| 01.duplicated_blocks | little shipping code is repeated verbatim across filesshare 0.002 · product files 86 · distinct blocks 30,280 |
| 05.committed_secrets | no credential-shaped strings outside test and fixture pathsnote the working tree only; the history is 05.5 · patterns 7 · files read 183 |
| 05.license_present | a licence file is presentfound True |
| 05.secrets_in_history | no credential-shaped string was ever added outside test and fixture pathspatterns 7 · truncated False · added lines 134,384 |
| 05.secrets_management_pattern | no environment file is committed outside tests and examplesenv files 0 |
| 05.supply_chain_pinning | third-party build steps are pinned, or fewaction refs 16 · pipe to shell 0 · unpinned third party 1 |
| 05.license_manifest_conflict | manifest and licence file agree on Unlicenselicense Unlicense |
| 05.license_vendored_unlicensed | no vendored third-party code is committedcomponents 0 |
| 05.license_grant_unclear | the licence is recognisable as Unlicenseclass public-domain · license Unlicense |
Could not conclude, or did not apply — 5
Not a clean result. Each says why it could not answer here.
| Signal | Why |
|---|---|
| 04.dependency_sprawl | no recognised dependency manifest found |
| 04.eol_runtime | no pinned runtime version to check |
| 05.dependency_pinning | no manifest whose pinning can be read without a lockfile |
| 05.container_runs_as_root | no Dockerfile to read |
| 05.license_copyleft_inherited | no third-party code is committed to this repository, so the licences it depends on are resolved at build time and are not readable here |
Anyone can check this report against the authoritative record — click the stamp, or enter DBTK-FFDF-9Y23 at borehole.dev/verify.
The code commits to the 43 checks this run performed, the bands they produced, and the commit they were read at. It does not cover checks written since.
Put the mark in your README
The image is wrapped in a link to the verification page, so a reader can check it rather than take it on trust. If you embed it: link it to the report, remove it if the report is delisted, and do not present it as a certification or an endorsement.
[](https://borehole.dev/verify/DBTKFFDF9Y23?via=badge)
A survey is a reading by a particular version of the assessor. Older readings are kept rather than replaced, because a verification mark attests to the survey it was issued for — overwriting one would make every code already in circulation read as tampered.
| Read | Assessor | Findings | Band |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-09-24 · shown | borehole 0.4.0.dev2 | 5 | strong |
20 other readings (show)
| 2026-10-04 | borehole 0.7.13 | 1 | adequate |
| 2026-10-03 | borehole 0.7.12 | 1 | adequate |
| 2026-10-03 | borehole 0.7.11 | 1 | adequate |
| 2026-10-02 | borehole 0.7.10 | 1 | adequate |
| 2026-10-01 | borehole 0.7.9 | 1 | adequate |
| 2026-09-30 | borehole 0.7.8 | 1 | strong |
| 2026-09-29 | borehole 0.7.6 | 1 | strong |
| 2026-09-28 | borehole 0.7.5 | 2 | adequate |
| 2026-09-27 | borehole 0.7.4 | 2 | adequate |
| 2026-09-27 | borehole 0.7.3 | 2 | adequate |
| 2026-09-27 | borehole 0.7.2 | 2 | adequate |
| 2026-09-27 | borehole 0.7.1 | 2 | adequate |
| 2026-09-26 | borehole 0.7.0 | 2 | adequate |
| 2026-09-26 | borehole 0.6.3 | 1 | strong |
| 2026-09-26 | borehole 0.6.2 | 1 | strong |
| 2026-09-25 | borehole 0.6.1 | 2 | strong |
| 2026-09-25 | borehole 0.6.0 | 5 | adequate |
| 2026-09-24 | borehole 0.4.0 | 5 | strong |
| 2026-09-24 | borehole 0.4.0.dev1 | 5 | strong |
| 2026-09-23 | borehole 0.1.0.dev0 | 9 | adequate |
Where this scan ran
This scan ran on ordinary cloud infrastructure (cloud-run), not in a hardware-isolated confidential VM. Nothing about it is attested by Google.
What an attested survey proves, and what it does not.
What this scan did with the repository — 6 steps
Written by the steps themselves as they ran, not described afterwards. A hand-written account of a data flow drifts the first time somebody changes the flow and not the account.
| At | Step | Detail |
|---|---|---|
| 0.4s | read repository metadata from the GitHub API | size mb: 5.6authenticated: False |
| 2.7s | cloned the repository to a temporary directory | depth: full |
| 3.7s | read the git history | commits: 2287tracked files: 237 |
| 11.6s | ran the deterministic checks | blame pass: Trueread working tree: False |
| 11.6s | recorded where this scan ran | attested: Falseenvironment: cloud-run |
| 11.6s | deleting the working copy |
Total 11.6s ·source content sent off this machine: none · calls to a language model: 0 · the clone was deleted when the survey ended
An automated reading of a repository's code and its history up to one commit, with public advisory records. It may be wrong, it is not legal, financial, investment or security advice, and it does not replace diligence by a qualified person. It is provided for information: nobody may rely on it (Borehole's terms, section 3).